Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it adds none. It never explains what is destroyed (prior stacking positions are lost), that changes are not idempotent, or that certain modes need a reference shape. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, so there is no padding, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing about modes, ordering semantics, or the reference shape is front-loaded because nothing is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, an undocumented enum, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at the meaning of mode and reference_id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. The enum's six modes (front/back/forward/backward/behind/in_front_of) are never explained, and it never states that reference_id is effectively required when mode is "behind" or "in_front_of" — a hidden conditional the agent cannot infer.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Change stacking order" restates the title verbatim and names no resource (shapes/layers/z-order), so the agent cannot tell from the text whether this operates on shapes, artboards, or layers. It is only distinguishable from siblings like align, distribute, or group by opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any sibling tool as an alternative (e.g. how this differs from align or distribute). The agent gets no signal for choosing this tool over the ~70 others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.